RANANJAYA SINGH ti. BAIJNATH SINGH [MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J & Ors. v. ( 6 O'Mally & Hardcastle's Report of referred to. Sir Christopher Furness

Order Election Tribunal, Allahabad, in Election No. 252 of 1952. 5-88 S. C. India/59 - .. 672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955] 1954 Rananjoya Singh , v. Bajjnath Singh and Otlllrs. N. C. Chatterjee and G. N. Kunzru, (Rameshwar Nath and Rajinder Narain, with them) for the appellant. Veda Vyasa (G. C. Mathur, with him) for respond ent No. 1. D01 J.

#1954. September 29. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAs J.-Kunwar Rananjaya Singh, the appellant before us, is the son of Raja Bhagwan Bux Singh of Amethi. He was the successful candidate at an election to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly from Amethi (Central) constituencl': the polling in respect of which took place on the 31st January, 1952, and the result whereof was announced on the 6th February, 1952, and finally published in the Uttar Pradesh State Gazette on respondent, Baijnath the 26th February, 1952. The Singh, who was one of the unsuccessful candidates filed an election petition calling in question the election of the appellant. Three other unsuccessful candidates were also impleaded as respondents. The grounds on which the election was challenged were that the appel lant himself, together with his own and his father's servants and other dependents and agents, committed various corrupt practices of bribery, exercise of undue influence, publication of false ments and concealment of expenses as. per in the petition and the schedules particulars set forth that the election of the appellant thereto. He prayed the said respondent, be that he, 'be set aside elected. The appellant .declared to have been duly .alone In his written statement contested the petition. he denied each and every one of the charges of corrupt practices levelled against him and he also filed a peti conduct of the tion of said respondent at the election. The said respondent .denied the charges imputed to him. Altogether 15 issues were raised, namely, eight on the election petition and ·7 on the petition of recrimination. All the 7 issues ·arising out of the petition of recrimination were found the election by the tribunal constituted for hearing of the petition of appellant petition :recrimination was dismissed. The appellant has not recrimination challenging the and defamatory against the election - • S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 673 correctness of further need be said those findings before us contested the and nothing about them. As regards the issues arising on the main election petition appellant the election tribunal on issues Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 but decided issue No. 3 against the appellant. That issue was as follows :- found in favour of the "3. Did respondent No. 1 employ election more persons than authorised by law ? Did respondent No. 1 incur the expenditure shown in the list as "Heads of other concealed expenditures?" Did he exceed the prescribed limit of expenditure election ?"

1.954 Rananjaya Sinth Vil Baij nath Singh and Others. Das J. - related The above issue to charges made out in list of paragraph 6 of the election petition and the III of the schedule thereto. particulars set out in Part The particulars in that part were grouped under main heads, each containing several items. The first head to have been employed on referred to persons alleged payment far in excess of the prescribed number and not shown in the return of election expenses. The second concealed head of particulars contained other alleged expenditures. The election tribunal held in favour of the appellant on all items of charges under both heads in Part III, except items (ii) and (iii) of the first head. Item (ii l charged that ·all the paid Ziladars of Amethi estate who were about 20 in number assisted by their peons and orderlies worked for the appellant and item No. (iii) complained that the Manager and the Assistant for him. The Manager of that estate also worked all these persons tribunal held that the number coming within these two prescribed number of persons who could be employed in an election and their salary the elec worked for the appellant in connection with tion, if added to the admitted election expenses, would exceed contesting a single-member constituency. The tribunal, that the appellant was guilty, under therefore, held these heads, of corrupt practice as defined in section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and was to be dealt with under section 100(2) (b) and secrion 145 of that Act. expenditure permissible categories far exceeded consequently liable the maximum for the period 1954 -Rananjaya Singh v. /Jaijnath Singh and Othtrs. Das J. - 674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19551 finding inasmuch as findings as to employment of extra persons on These payment expenditure of money in excess of the permissible maximum election expenses necessarily led to the further expenses had not been shown in the appellant's return of election expenses the appellant was also guilty of a corrupt practice as defined in section 124( 4) of the Act and was liable to be dealt with under section 100(2) (a) and section 145 of the Act. result, the tribunal under the general issue No. 8 only declared the election of the appellant to be void. Hence this appeal filed by the unseated candidate with the special leave of this Court. In the As in respect of elections and the maximum that constituency Section 77 of the Representation of the People Act, scales of election 1951, provides that expenses at the numbers and descrip tions of persons who may be employed for payment as may be in connection with election shall be expense, prescribed. the maximum regards rule 117 lays down that no expense shall be incurred or authorised by a candidate or his election agent on account of or the conduct and manage ment of an election in any one constituency in a State in excess of the maximum amount specified in respect in Schedule V. The maximum amount specified in that schedule in respect of a single member constituency in is only Rs. 8,(IQO. Rule 118 prescribes that no person other in Schedule VI than or in addition to those shall be for payment by a candidate or employed his election agent in connection with an election. Schedule VI allows 1 election agent, 1 counting agent, It also allows, 1 clerk and 1 messenger at all elections. in addition to these. 1 clerk and 1 messenger for 75,000 electors and 1 polling agent and 2 relief agents for each polling booth and 1 messenger at each polling the provisions of section both. The contravention of 77, read with rules 117 and 118 and Schedules V and VI, is made a corrupt practice by section 123(7). Section to amount to a 123(7) clearly shows expenditure must be corrupt practice excess incurred or authorised hy a candidate or his agent and the Uttar Pradesh in order specified - - • 19$4 ........... Rananjaya Singh •• Baijnath Singh and OtMrs. ......... DaJ J, - - S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 675 the employment of hy a candidate or his agent. extra persons must likewise be nevertheless, in section 77, The charge against the appellant was, inter alia, that the Manager, Assistant Manager, 20 Ziladars of Amethi estate and their peons and orderlies had worked for the the election. The tribunal appellant in connection with erroneously-that the view-we although the estate belonged to the father of the appel appellant was the heir lant, the estate on behalf apparent and actually looked after of the old and infirm proprietor, these servants of "virtually'~ his "own" servants and could estate were properly be regarded as having been employed for pay ment by the appellant. The learned advocate appear respondent frankly and properly conceded ing for the finding of that he could not support this part of the tribunal. He, however, contended, relying on language used if the number of persons who worked for payment in connection with the election exceeded the maximum number specified in Schedule VI, the case fell within the mischief of the relevant sections and the rules, no matter who employed It is true that them or who made payments to them. section 77 uses the words "who may be employed for by whom employed or payment" without indicating paid but it must be borne in mind that the gist of a corrupt practice as defined in section 123(7) is that the employment of incurring or authorising of excess expenditure must be by the candi rules 117 and date or his agent. The provisions of the light of this definition of a 118 are corrupt practice. language of section 123(7) in that employment of persons other the incurring or those specified in Schedule VI, and authorising of expenditure in excess of the amount specified in Schedule V, and in both cases by a candi date or his agent. Section 77 must, therefore, be in a manner consonant with section 123(7) and rules 117 the observation made by Phillimore J. in Joseph Forster Wilson and follow they prohibit than . or in addition In this view of extra persons to be read in the matter and the Indeed, l18. •954 ~ !'ananjaya S}ngh v, Baijnalh Singh and Othtrs. = pasJ. 676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955} the father they assisted judgment of referred to in the Another v. Sir Christopher Furness('), relied on by the appellant and tribunal are quite apposite. There can be no doubt that in the eye of the law these extra persons were in the employment of the father of the appellant and paid by the father and they were neither employed nor paid by the appellant. The case, therefore, does not fall within section 123 (7) at all and if that be so, it cannot It obviously was a case come within section 124(4). the matter of where a father assisted the son election. These persons were employees of father and paid by him for working in the estate. At son in request of connection with the election which strictly speaking they were not obliged to do. Was the position in law at all different from the position that the father had given these employees . a holiday on full pay and they voluntarily rendered assistance to connection with his election ? We think not. It is clear to us that qua the appellant these persons were neither employed nor paid by him. So far as the appellant was concerned they were mere volunteers and the learned that employment advocate for the of volunteers does not bring the candidate within mischief of the definition of corrupt practice. as given in however, contended that such a construction would be against the spirit of the election laws in that candidates who have an unfair have rich advantage over a poor rival, The spirit of the law may well be an elusive and unsafe guide and the supposed spirit can certainly not be given effect to in opposition to the plain language of the sections of the Act and the rules made thereunder. If all that can be said of these statutory provisions the ordinary, grammatical and natural meaning of their language they work the poorer candidates· at a disadvantage Parliament and not to this Court. 123(7). The learned advocate, friends or relations would the appeal must be injustice by placing respondent admits that construed according appellant section l 6 O' Mally ?.nd Hardcastle's Report of Election Cases, page 1 at page 6. · • - • ' 1' 1954 RanJJnjaya Singh v. Baijnath Singh and Others. Das]. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 677 such expenditure and, election expenses he cannot be said On a consideration of the relevant provisions of the Act and the rules and the arguments advanced before us we are of opinion that the appellant cannot in the this case be held to be guilty of any circumstances of corrupt practice under section 123(7) as alleged against him. It follows from this that pot having incurred any expenditure over and above what was shown by him in his return of have concealed therefore, he cannot be held to have been guilty of any minor corrupt practice under section 124(4) of the Act. In the view we have ·taken, namely, that these extra men were not employed or paid by the appellant, it is unnecessary, for the purpose of this appeal, to discuss the question servants are also utilised or whether, if one's own employed in election, their salary for the. period they are so utilised or employed should be regarded as election return. On that we prefer not to express any opm1on on this occasion. No other point having been raised we allow this appeal with costs. expenses and shown the conduct of the Appeal allowed. - In re HIRA LAL DIXIT AND TWO OTHERS [MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C. J., MuKHERJEA, S. R. DAs, VIVIAN BosE and GHULAM HASAN JJ.] Cont-;mpt of Court-Court hearing a case-Leaflet distributed by a party in Court premises during hearing-Language used Atfecting the fudges-Time and place of distribution-Hindering or obstructing due administration of justice. 1954 Octob1r 1. The petitioner was an applicant in one of the writ petitions which had been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the validity of U. P. Road J'ransport Act, 1951. During the hearing of writ petitions a leaflet printed in the Hindi language and intituled "Our Transport Department" purporting petitioner was distributed leaflet contained a graphic account of the harassment and indignity said to have been meted out to the writer by the State officers and the then State Minister of Transport in connection with the cancella respect of a tion and eventual passenger bus. in the Court premises. to be written by restoration of his license The